COMMERCIAL AVIATION & TRAVEL COMPANY & ORS. versus VIMAL PANNALAL

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 13-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

!-: 
COMMERCIAL AVIATION & TRAVEL COMPAN)f & ORS. 
A 
v. 
VIMAL PANNALAL 
JULY 13, 1988 
{RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTI, JJ.] 
B 
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908: Order VII Rule 1 J(b)-
Plaint to be rejected where relief claimed undervalued-Duty of Court 
to come to a finding that relief claimed is undervalued . 
. ' 
Court Fees Act 1870: Section 7(iv )(f)-Suit for dissolution of part-
nership and accounts-Valuation ofsu.it-Suit valued for jurisdiction at 
C 
Rs.25 lakhs and at Rs.500 for court fee-Whether suit undervalued for 
purpose of court fee. 
Suits Valuation Act 1887/Rules Framed by Punjab High Court as 
Applicable to Delhi. 
D 
The respondent plaintiff f"d<d a suit in the IDgh Court against the 
appellants inter alia for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The 
plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.25 lakhs 
and for the purpose of court fee at Rs.500. 
The appellants raised a preliminary objection as to the valuation 
of the suit contending that the relief sought for in the suit had been 
grossly undervalued and the Court should reject the plaint under Order 
VII, Rule ll(b), Civil Procedure Code. 
The learned Single Judge overruled the preliminary objection and 
F 
held that the suit was not undervalued. The Division Bench in dismis-
sing the appeal followed a Full Bench decision of the same High Court 
wherein it was observed that paragraph (iv) of section 7 of the Court 
Fees Act gave the right to the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in 
the clauses of that paragraph to place any value that he liked on.the 
relief he sought, subject, however, to any rule made under section 9 of G 
the Suits Valuation Act, and the Court bad no power to interfere With 
the plaintiff's valuation. 
Before this Court, the appellant contended (l) that in a suit for 
accounts the plaintiff could not value the •-uil most arbitrarily according 
to her whims and (2) that an objective standard or positive material 
H 
431 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A appeared on the face of the plaint and the valuation of the relief ignor-
ing such objective standard was demonstratively arbitrary. 
Dismissing the appeal it was, 
B 
HELD: (1) The suits which are mentioned under section 7(iv) are 
of such nature that it is difficult to lay down any standard of valuation. 
Indeed, the Legislature has not laid down any standard of valuation in 
the Court Fees Act. [43SB-C] 
(2) It is apparent from Rule 4(i) of the Rules framed by the 
Punjab High Court under section 9 of the Suits V11luation Act, which 
C are applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, that valuation for the 
purposes of Court Fee and jurisdiction is not the same. Under these 
Ruies, the value of suit for accounts for purposes· of court fee will have 
to be determined by the plaintiff. [434G-H) 
D 
(3) It is manifestly clear from the provision of Order VII, Rule 11 
·(b), that a Court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has 
been undervalued which necessarily means that the Court is able to 
decide and specify proper and correct valuation of the relief. But 
ordinarily it is not possible for the Court at a preliminary stage to 
determine the value of the relief in a suit for accounts simpliciter and 
E the Court bas no other alternative than to accept plaintiff's valuation 
tentatively. [43SG-H; 436B-C] 
( 4) Where there are objective standard of valuation or, in other 
words, the plaintiff or the Court can reasonably value the relief cor-
rectly on certain definite and positive materials, the plaintiff will not be 
F 
permitted to put an arbitrary valuation dehors such objective standards 
or materials. [439C-D] 
(5) The plaintiff cannot whimsically choose·a ridiculous figure for 
nting the suit where there are positive materials and/or objective 
standards of valuation of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint. 
G These materials or objective standards will also enable the Court to 
determine the valuation for the purpose of Order VII, Rule l l(b ), of the 
Code of Civil Procedure. [441C-D] 
(6) The valuation of the relief in the instant case, for the rendition of 
accounts under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act. is neither un-
H reasonable nor it is demonstratively, arbitrary. I 442E I 
.,__ 
COMMERCIAL AVIATION v. MRS. VIMAL [DUTI, J.] 
433 
Smt. Sheila Devi & Ors. v. Shri Kishan Lal Katra & Ors., ILR 
1974 Delhi 491; S. Rm. Ar. S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. 
A 
Ramanathan Ch

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.